THREE YEAR STUDY OF OVARIAN CANCER & RADIATION/CHEMOTHERAPHY BY GREG PAWELSKI

The following are the comments of Greg Pawelski, who lost his wife to ovarian cancer on September 21, 2000. As a result of an exhaustive study over a three year time period, he has written these comments. He has given me permission to publish them in Faye's website. For those of you who have ovarian cancer, or suspect that you might, or other cancers for that matter, you will want to read his report closely. It is somewhat lengthy, but very important information. It can also be somewhat technical in areas, but there is information that all of you need to know regarding ovarian cancer, the detailed information regarding accepting chemotheraphy or radiation and the possible consequences of that decision... Get a hot cup of coffee or hot chocolate and read Greg's research very carefully:

"During three years of research, I've written to over 3,000 medical professionals and institutions all over the United States and across the globe. What you'll read from my article, alot is from them. Some have been from over 500 medical web sites that I've studied (like MedLine, Pub Med, Oncololink, Johns-Hopkins, NCI, NIH, etc.). I have all of my wife's medical records to relay first hand experience.

There are three main points that I've found out in my three years of cancer research. One, is an understanding of the doctors involved with my wife's medical care at our local home town hospital. Two, is an understanding of the lack of uniformed cancer care being practiced here in the United States (even among a few of the leading cancer centers). Three, cancer patients do frequently die from their cancer treatments (it is not really "rare") and not from the cancer itself.

I receive hundreds of emails from other cancer treatment victims and their loved ones because of my postings on numerous web sites on the internet. They, as well as myself, thought we were alone. I found out there are too many of us out there needing more information, that should have been given "before" cancer treatment.

My wife's medical history:

In 1972, my wife had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer, when she presented with a left DVT (deep vein thrombosis) and pulmonary embolism at a hospital in San Diego, CA (blood clots "can" signal cancer). Workup which was triggered by this presentation revealed that she did have an ovarian carcinoma for which she underwent total abdominal hysterectomy and received Chlorambucil (Leukeren) treatment. This postoperative chemotherapy drug was among the slowest acting and least toxic of the alkylating agents (well tolerated oral drugs). By giving chemotherapy more often, at lower doses, it can prevent the regrowth of blood vessels that feed tumors. Depression of the immune system is slow and reversible, allowing it to regenerate and contribute to healing. A malfunctioning immune system can fail to stop the growth of cancer cells. She went twenty-four years before experiencing any recurrent ovarian cancer.

During the early 90's in Reading, Pa., she underwent a laparotomy (a surgical procedure which involves opening the abdominal cavity for examination) as a followup and this did not reveal any evidence of recurrent carcinoma. This is supposed to be the most certain way of diagnosing ovarian cancer and assessing the extent of cancer spread (metastasis). However, negative second-look patients have a 50% chance of disease recurrence anyway. For the most part, her group of oncologists relied almost entirely on the CA 125 tumor marker (a blood test done to assess the amount of an antibody that recognizes an antigen in ovarian tumor cells). The rate of "false positives" makes it inadequate for use "by itself" for screening of high-risk patients. It should be supplemented with transvaginal sonography and a rectovaginal pelvic exam all done at the same time.

It was our family doctor that found her first metastatic recurrence to her diaphragm in 1996 (not the medical oncologists at our local home town hospital). She was having dry coughing spells at first but then she began having a mucus discharge, which eventually was bloody. A chest xray and Cat Scan had shown a lesion inside her diaphragm. That recurrent ovarian cancer was surgically excised at Fox Chase Cancer Center. It was a metastatic transdiaphragmatic tumor from the original ovarian cancer (1972), with attachment to the lung and other midline structures of the chest. Parts of those structures were surgically resected (the diaphragm is a common site for ovarian metastatic recurrence).

The thoracic surgical oncologist left us with the knowledge that a second place an ovarian metastasis possibly could occur maybe the Central Nervous System (CNS) like the brain and/or the spine. It is very rare for ovarian cancer cells to metastisize to the CNS. In fact, up until 1994 there have been only 67 well documented cases in medical literature. A multi-institutional study of 4027 ovarian cancer patients over 30 years identified only 32 cases while an autopsy study of ovarian cancer reported an incidence of 0.9%. The surgeon at Fox Chase did not feel that further treatment with chemotherapy was indicated.

However, the ideas of our local home town Medical Oncologists were different from the Thoracic Surgical Oncologist who excised the tumor from her diaphragm. My wife received postoperative chemotherapy by these medical oncologists, seven months after having that metastatic tumor surgically excised. She did not have any cancer tumor markers indicate any cancer within her system. Some tumors send out microscopic outposts while most do not. However, medical oncologists cannot tell which ones do, so they want to give chemotherapy in nearly every case. The type of chemotherapy she received was the hit fast, hit hard type combination chemotherapy of Taxol with Carboplatin (second-line chemotherapy). It is usually given in big doses, with breaks of several weeks between doses to let the body try to recover (or else it can kill a patient).

Patients who develop recurrent ovarian cancer more than 6 months after first-line chemotherapy (in my wife's case, 24 years), can experience another remission following treatment with the identical first-line chemotherapy that was previously used (in her case, Chlorambucil). It has not been shown that platinum-based combination therapy is superior to single agent alkylator therapy. No substantial benefit has been found in giving ovarian cancer patients second-line chemotherapy. Clinicians have found that the toxic effects of this treatment can cause a lower quality of life for these patients. Plus, the late stage of "recurrent ovarian cancer" makes the combination chemotherapy of Taxol & Carboplatin drug resistent to cancer cells and suppresses the immune system, making it possible new tumors to grow because the patient has been rendered unable to resist them.

In recent years the incidence of central nervous system (CNS) metastasis has increased. Unfortunately, some chemotherapeutic agents can weaken the blood-brain barrier (BBB) transiently and allow CNS seeding. Taxol & Carboplatin are two of the drugs that violate the blood-brain barrier (dose dependent). In essence, it breaks down, damages the blood-brain barrier (BBB) to invite microscopic cancer cells into the CNS. A NCI observational study in 1995 reported experience in their clinic where recurrent systemic disease occurred in all patients for
which they received dose intense paclitaxel (Taxol) therapy. Brain metastasis was the only site of disease recurrence, presenting with headache, dizziness, unsteady gait, nausea and vomiting.

It was our family doctor that found her second metastatic recurrence to her cerebellum in 1998 (not the medical oncologists at our local home town hospital). She was presenting with headache, dizziness, unsteady gait, nausea and vomiting. A large (3.5cm) solitary cerebellar brain tumor was found via enchanced Cat Scan (later confirmed by an enhanced MRI). The tumor was excised from her brain by a Neurosurgeon at Hershey Medical Center. Histologic features were consistent with metastatic papillary adenocarcinoma with extensive necrosis from the ovary.

The Neurosurgeon stated that he was 99% successful and felt that she should go back to our local home town hospital and receive focal radiation to the local tumor bed (which is 2cm beyond the periphery of the excised tumor site). The treatment protocol recommended for brain metastases of large solitary tumors exceeding 2cm in diameter is surgical resection followed by 5 fractions of local radiation to the tumor bed. At the same time, he stated that she should receive an MRI of the spine because of suspicions of either another tumor, on her spine or a herniated disc, causing her leg problems.

The ideas of our local home town Radiation Oncologist were different from the Neurosurgeon who excised the tumor from her brain. The Radiation Oncologist took it upon himself to give my wife 5 fractions of focal radiation to the local tumor bed, plus 20 fractions of Whole Brain Radiation over a 35 day period. The risk of neurotoxicity from Whole Brain Radiation is not insignificant and this approach is not indicated in all patients with a solitary brain metastases, particularly when platinum drugs lower the tolerance of the CNS to radiation.

Literature of the early and mid-80's on morbidity of Whole Brain Radiation, is flooded with papers reporting long-term side effects, such as dementia, memory loss, radiation induced necrosis, leukoencephalopathy, in up to 50% of two year survivors. Whole Brain Radiation Therapy has been recognized to cause considerable permanent side effects in patients over 60 years of age. The side effects from WBR Therapy affect up to 90% of patients in this age group. My wife was 66 years of age while receiving Whole Brain Radiation Therapy.

During radiation treatment, my wife received an Unenhanced MRI to the spine that showed a 1cm lesion. Instead of performing an Enhanced MRI to the spine to further evaluate, our local home town hospital performed a Bone Scan that showed normal bone imaging. However, a Bone Scan cannot distinguish what a lesion represents and cannot differentiate between a tumor, an infection or a fracture. Enhanced (contrast) agents increase the sensitivity, conspicuity and accuracy of an exam. The agent most commonly used is Gadolinium. The proper medical protocol for all Brain and Spinal MRI's for metastatic diseases is Enhanced with contrast (today, it is the Pet Scan). An Enhanced MRI was not performed and the Radiation Oncologist told us the lesion was nothing and not to worry about it. He also ignored my complaints about her having seizures during radiation therapy.

Nine months later, my wife was admitted to our local home town hospital during the Memorial Day Weekend of 1999, for a week of testing and evaluation for unexplained falls and light-headiness. After two weeks of failing to find out what was wrong with her, I took her by ambulance to Hershey Medical Center for proper medical treatment. At Hershey Medical Center, we found out by a medical onocologist and a neurologist that she had Leptomeningeal Carcinomatous (remember the undiagnose tumor of nine months prior, not further evaluated?). An Enhanced MRI showed now three (3) metastatic tumors on her spine. Spinal metastases can grow into adjacent structures, such as into the meninges from the spine. The largest of these tumors grew into the meninges on the spine into the spinal fluid, hence Leptomeningeal Carcinomatous. This was confirmed by a spinal tap.

With the damage already done to her by our local home town hospital, the doctors at Hershey Medical (in order to save her life or at least give her some time) had to administer Intrathecal Methotrexate along with systemic radiation to the spine (Admitted June 19,1999). When both therapies are performed at the same time it doubles the theraputic dosages of each therapy (increasing the neuro-toxic effects on the brain). However, the cancer cells were eradicated completely from her central nervous system by this protocol. Ever since the second spinal tap at Hershey (when methotrexate was already being administered), all of her spinal taps were negative for 10 consecutive times up until January 14, 2000. A Whole Body Bone Scan (November 3, 1999) indicated that the skeletal system demonstrated normal uptake and an Enhanced Brain MRI (November 3, 1999) showed no new areas of abnormal enhancement.

My first experience with the side effects of combination chemotherapy and whole brain radiation was when she was at Hershey Medical Center in 1999. The doctors showed me the Enhanced Brain MRI from her previous year's cerebellum excision and the one done in 1999. The scans showed the progressive deteriation of her white matter (white matter disease). Late delayed effects, occuring several months to many years later, are classified into diffuse white-matter injury, radiation-induced arteriopathy & stroke, and late delayed Radiation Necrosis. These reactions are due to changes in the white matter and death of brain tissue caused by radiation-damaged blood vessels. This clinical syndrome generally occurs 6 months to 2 years after radiation therapy. Symptoms include decreased intellect, memory impairment, confusion, personality changes and alteration of the normal function of the area irradiated (all symptoms my wife had over the past year).

Radiation Necrosis can be fatal! It causes pathological changes that impair vascular integrity. Delayed radiation injuries result in increased tissue pressure from edema, vascular injury leading to infarction (stroke), damage to endothelial cells and fibrinoid necrosis of small arteries and arterioles. My wife suffered a stroke to the left basal ganlia area of the brain in January 2000, confirmed by an enhanced MRI.

My wife had developed necrotizing leukoencephalopathy (a form of diffuse white matter injury that can follow combination chemotherapy), confirmed by an enhanced MRI in July of 1998 at Hershey. The white matter is the covering of the nerves within the brain. Its function is to speed up the passage of impulses along the nerves. Necrosis is simply a cell dying, all of its coordinated activities going wrong and things shut down. If a cell gets too much heat or is poisoned by a toxic substance or exposed to chemicals that damage its proteins and membraines or radiation that breaks its DNA molecules, that cell can just stop functioning.

An EEG showed generalized diffuse slowing that was significant with global encephalopathy. It is most commonly seen in toxic metabolic and degenerative conditions. There appeared to be a real amount of focal right sided slowing which would indicate cortical dysfunction on that side. Her MRI's showed the ventricles overall were prominent and there was widening of the sulci consistent with cerebral atrophy (wasting away of brain cells and tissues). There was diffuse, abnormal signal intensity within the periventricular white matter, consistent with post radiation changes. The signal abnormality within the white matter appeared slightly increased compared to her prior studies. A Pet Scan showed globally decreased radiotracer uptake within the brain, bilaterally, consistent with involutional change and prior radiation therapy.

Because of the previous chemo-radiation treatments, a recurrence of the cerebral metastasis was very likely to h
appen in the future. Some long-term effects can include development of secondary maligancies (the risk is 16 times greater). Resistance to standard chemotherapy regimens of Carboplatin with Taxol ultimately develops in nearly all adenocarcinoma cancer patients (mainly because of the late stages of the cancer). Recurrent ovarian cancer being such a late stage cancer, can be resistant to the combination chemotherapy of Taxol/Carboplatin. It can actually spread the cancerous cells rather than the cancer itself spreading. Since both radiation and chemotherapy suppress the immune system, it is possible that new tumors are allowed to grow because the patient has been rendered unable to resist them. A person who is cured of cancer by these drastic means may find himself struggling with a new, drug-induced tumor a few years later. A malfunctioning immune system can fail to stop the growth of cancer cells.

Recurrence of the cerebral metastasis was observed via an Enhanced MRI of May 2000 at Hershey Medical Center and a Pet Scan of August 2000 at the University of Pennsylvania. Four, mm-sized metastatic tumors were found in and around the previously resected cerebeller tumor and because of my wife's weakened condition, Gamma-Knife would be the only best medical protocol. She received Gamma-Knife treatment at University of Maryland Medical Center on September 12, 2000. During the whole time of her admission at the hospital, the doctors kept referring to her continued diffuse white-matter injury (brain necrosis), as if she may be too far advanced in that injury to survive much longer. She died at home on Thursday, September 21, 2000 at the age of 68 from Cardio-Pulmonary Failure. Minutes before she expired, her temperature was normal, her blood pressure was normal but her pulse was 150 (tachycardia). Her heart was racing to keep up with the lack of brain function and finally quit.

The white matter disease that my wife experienced and caused her death was primarily a result of Whole Brain Radiation and secondary a result of Combination Chemotherapy of Taxol & Carboplatin (Methotrexate was icing on the cake). The Combination Chemotherapy of Taxol & Carboplatin caused microscopic ovarian cancer cells to seed inside the CNS to form a tumor on the cerebellum and tumors on the spinal cord, with concomitant necrotizing leukoencephalopathy. Carboplatin lowered the tolerance of her Central Nervous System to any radiation treatment.The Whole Brain Radiation resulted in the death of tumor cells and associated reaction in surrounding normal brain. Such reactions tend to occur more frequently in larger metastatic lesions. Late delayed Radiation Necrosis (also known as Radiation Encephalopathy) is often irreversible and progressive, leading to severe disability or death (all symptoms my wife experienced).

I feel that my wife's life was greatly shortened and neurologically deteriorated by the chemo and radiation treatment received at our local home town hospital. Patients who develop recurrent ovarian cancer more than 6 months after first-line chemotherapy can experience another remission following treatment with the identical first-line chemotherapy that was previously used. Aggressive treatment, like surgical excision of tumor and focal radiation to the local tumor bed, in patients with limited or no systemic disease can yield long-term survival. In such patients, delayed deleterious side effects of whole brain radiation therapy are particularly tragic and there is no survival benefit or prolonged independence. The patient cannot experience the benefical improvement in quality of life.

Most surgical oncology is curative (62%). Surgery generally doesn't have any long-term effects directly related to the procedure itself. With surgery, observation with Enhanced MRI's, Functional MRI's, Pet Scans and the like have made observation more detectable and easier. If brain metastasis would occur, there are a number of radiation treatments for therapy (Stereotatic, Gamma-Knife and Brachyradiation to name a few). These are "focal", not "diffuse". My wife and I had the medical adage that since most of surgical oncology is curative, we wanted to fight her cancers with surgery. Each and every one gave her more life to live. All of the surgeons that were involved in her cancer fight over the years are our heroes.

If more people researched how and why their loved-one died after being treated by orthodox cancer therapies then I believe there would be a movement to have more effective and less toxic treatments available. Ideally, we would conduct such research before the treatments were administered but we usually don't have the luxury of time to learn what the oncologists are not telling us when it matters most. It is scary when we try to give oncologists the benefits of doing what needs to be done but we have to learn to ask more questions and seek more answers.

It seems the medical profession doesn't want to hear about the side effects of treatment for gynological cancer and keeps referring to the lives of women loss this way as "rare". If it was their lives, they might not call it "rare". Some people would have you believe that because "their" bodies didn't give out after receiving chemotherapy or radiation that these treatments are "o.k.". Sometimes it is good for the soul to hear what others in similar circumstances have to say.

The quality of life must be considered as a major decision point in cancer care. That element, so long missing in most clinics, hopefully will be brought to the fore expecially in the many cancer clinical trials. I hope that quality of life soon becomes a major outcome issue for all involved in the treatment of patients with cancer. I will continue to be an advocate for my loved ones and help others in their own journeys with cancer.

Some additional history needs to be told. I didn't get to be with Ann for all that twenty-eight year ride, from her first ovarian cancer experience in 1972 until her demise in 2000. I met Ann in 1990 when she moved back east to be near her only brother (after her first husband died suddenly of a heart attack in 1988). She moved across the street from my parents in Reading, Pa. I totally ignored her across the street, I didn't want to get involved with a widow. In 1993, I bought the house next door to her, to be nearer my very senior parents to overlook them. Little did we both know that we would become an item (it was mostly her doing). She sold her house and I sold mine and we bought "our" house out in the middle of the woods (and of course, married). I went through all of her ovarian cancer recurrences from 1996-2000 (well, they were not all cancer recurrences, most turned out to be side effects of treatment).

June 5, 1999 was the turning point in my life, not the day in 1996 when we first found out she had her first ovarian recurrence (if you knew what she was like, the first recurrence was a piece of cake). It was the day she fell on the floor in our great room and broke her hip in four places. I ran upstairs from the computer room and my first thought was, "I should have been there, along side her, instead of being down stairs at the computer. Our local home town hospital was not just inept at cancer but a wide variety of medicine. Here was a woman who had a tumor (then tumors) on her spine , for almost a year, causing one heck of a lot of problems for her and the doctors at our local home town hospital didn't know one darn thing. That's what was frightening!

I tell people now in my email responses and postings, that survival rates immediately following complicated cancer surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy are two to three times higher at facilities that perform a high volume of these procedures. Cancer patients needing such treatments therefore should be served in more-experienced settings, and not at your local home town hospital. There are 80 NCI-designated cancer centers across the U.S. and some darn good ones (like Hershey Medical Center) that do not have the designati
on yet. I first took my wife to Fox Chase Cancer Center for excellent surgery, by one of the finest surgeons in America, but then I brought her back to our local home town hospital where cancer medicine revolves around a culture of arrogance and cowboy mentality.

Another shock that I received was when the email responses started to come in from the many postings on web sites I contribute to, from hundreds of patients or the loved one of a patient who were cancer treatment victims like my wife and me. I only hope I can reach as many cancer patients beginning their journey and relay our experience and the vast realm of information that there is out there. It is up to them to gather as much of that information they can. I found out most likely, it will not come from the medical or radiation oncologists that treat them.

I've received numerous emails about my wife's cancer story from patients and their loved ones who have fought cancer with surgery alone (so Ann and I aren't alone with this idea). Lung cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer, brain tumors to name a few. I have a few personal friends who too, have gone with surgery alone (they are still here). Their life was extended not because of chemotherapy or radiation therapy but because of great, competent surgical care.

The problem with chemotherapy and radiation therapy is that in most cases it will not cure, it is just pallative (to ease the pain or force of without curing). The chance of curing some cancers with chemo or radiation is probably less than 10%, according to clinical investigators at the National Cancer Institute. That is why most medical oncologists and radiation oncologists refer to "remission", and not "cure". I'm not against all chemotherapy and radiotherapy, just most of it. Some have their usefulness.

I've always felt the way my wife was treated for her ovarian cancer back in 1972 was the reason she survived so long. Her type of treatment sounds very similar to the Angiogenesis & Low Dose Chemotherapy treatment that is finding increasing acceptance in cancer centers today. Her postoperative chemotherapy drug was among the slowest acting and least toxic of the alkylating agents. Depression of the immune system is slow and reversible, allowing it to regenerate and contribute to healing. The lower-dose regimen was meant to attack the blood vessels that feed the tumor. Tumors create their own supply lines by secreting substances that stimulate the formation of new blood vessels and researchers suspect that frequent low doses of certain drugs may disrupt the growth of those new vessels, starving the tumor (she also may have had some of her own anti-angiogenesis predisposition).

The results of years of clinical trials on patient populations are considered enough indication on how an individual will respond. The percentage of patients that must respond to a drug before it is approved varies from as low as 20% to as high as 80%, depending on the type of cancer. Thereafter it is used routinely for all patients with the same form of cancer, though unfortunately a drug that helps one person does not necessarily mean that it will help all people with the same diagnosis. Unfortunately, a good number of medical oncologists follow the one drug(s) fits all therapy.

The notion that patients treated by conventional therapies live longer than untreated victims is biased by the methods of defining the groups. If a person in the untreated category dies at any time while he or she is being studied, this is recorded as a death in the control group and registered as a failure of the no treatment approach. However, if patients in the treated category die during the course of treatment (before the course is completed), their cases are rejected from the data since these patients do not then meet the criteria established by definition of the term "treated". A patient dying on day 89 of a prescribed 90-day course of chemotherapy would be dropped from the list of treated patients.

Chemotherapy resistance is the major cause of cancer treatment failure. Breast, prostate, and ovarian cancers represent malignancies in which the development of drug-resistant forms has prevented significant cures with current conventional chemotherapeutic agents. A high degree of drug resistance is also associated with cancers of the liver, colon, pancreas, kidney, and lung. Even today, 90 percent of all drug cures occur in only 10 percent of cancer types that are intrinsically drug-sensitive, e.g., acute childhood leukemia, testicular cancer, and Hodgkin's disease.

Some tumors (like adenocarcinoma) are highly resistant to virtually all anti-cancer drugs, while other tumors are quite sensitive. Most patient tumors fall in between these two extremes, with resistance to some drugs but not to others. Many mechanisms by which cancer cells develop resistance have been identified. Most cancers have some degree of drug resistance with many patients not responding to the chemotherapy most commonly prescribed for the tumor type.

The chemotherapeutic drug Taxol is heavily used as a cocktail with Carboplatin. The effectiveness of this combination regimen is limited because ovarian cancer is ordinarily detected in its late stages (as lung and breast cancer can also) when most patients develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs. Virtually all cancers contain cells resistant to chemotherapy and the number of drug resistant cells increases expodentially as a tumor expands in size. After treatment is completed the surviving drug resistant cells often proliferate rapidly. The late stage of "recurrent ovarian cancer" makes the chemo combination of Taxol & Carboplatin drug resistent to cancer cells and suppressed the immune system, making it possible new tumors to grow because the patient has been rendered unable to resist them.

Since both radiation and chemotherapy suppress the immune system, it is possible that new tumors are allowed to grow because the patient has been rendered unable to resist them. A person who is cured of cancer by these drastic means may find himself struggling with a new, drug-induced tumor a few years later. A malfunctioning immune system can fail to stop the growth of cancer cells. Also, as a result of drug resistance, the chemo drug (that the cancerous tumor is resistent to) can actually spread the cancerous cells rather than the cancer itself spreading (chemo-radiation treatments "can" spread the cancer).

I've experienced this with my wife's ovarian cancer (an adenocarcinoma). The above is some of the information my wife and I were not told about and I found out that numerous other cancer patients and their loved ones are not told either.

Most surgical oncology is curative (62%). In cases of cancer being in Stage I or II, success rates border over 90%. Surgery generally doesn't have any long-term effects directly related to the procedure itself. With surgery, observation with Enhanced MRI's, Functional MRI's, Pet Scans and the like have made observation more detectable and easier. It is believed that surgery may leave behind "some" stray cancer cells, which depends on the experience of the surgeon involved. However, with an immune system intact, one is able to resist the curses of metastatic disease. If a patient cannot have surgery or the surgery was not successful, then further information is needed to make an intelligent decision.

The body's immune system attacks and eliminates not only bacteria and other foreign substances but also cancer cells. Cancer cells are not foreign to the body but their biological function has been altered in that it doesn't respond to the body's normal mechanisms for controlling cell growth and reproduction. The abnormal cells can continue to grow, resulting in cancer. Much of the body's protection against cancer is carried out directly by cells of the immune system rather than by antibodies circulating in the bloodstream. Cancer is more likely to occur in people who take drugs that suppress the immune
system than in people with normal immune systems.

Even today, 90 percent of all drug cures occur in only 10 percent of cancer types that are intrinsically drug-sensitive, e.g., acute childhood leukemia, testicular cancer, and Hodgkin's disease. Breast, prostate, and ovarian cancers represent malignancies in which the development of drug-resistant forms has prevented significant cures with current conventional chemotherapeutic agents. A high degree of drug resistance is also associated with cancers of the liver, colon, pancreas, kidney, and lung. Chemotherapy resistance is the major cause of cancer treatment failure.

If patients were educated as to the disease process, they just might consider their options. Patients should know what the demonstrated benefits are and the risks, because the treatments can be debilitating and even life-threatening. It takes time for doctors to sit down with patients and truly explain the benefits and the risks of treatment. In an ideal world, patients would consider the benefits and the risks of each treatment and make an informed decision with the guidance of a wise doctor. But, hurried doctors seldom spend much time discussing the benefits and the risks and few patients ever question whether treatment may do more harm than good.

Therefore, obtaining informed consent is one of the most important responsibilities of any physician who uses any therapy that may potentially injure a patient. In order to "inform" the patient the physician him/herself needs to understand the anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, etc. of the treatment as well as all of the potential risks and complications. Alternative treatments should be described. In addition to understanding (which is increasingly difficult, even for "specialists" in an age of burgeoning medical knowledge and technology, the physician "informing" a patient needs to spend enough time to make sure that the patient understands well enough that the "consent" was truly "informed.

A NCI observational study in 1995 reported experience in their clinic where recurrent systemic disease occurred in all patients for which they received dose intense paclitaxel(taxol) therapy. Brain metastasis was the only site of disease recurrence. The cerebellum was involved in two out of three patients, presenting with headache, dizziness, unsteady gait, nausea and vomiting (these were all symptoms and results my wife experienced). I've had a number of cancer patients and loved ones of cancer patients who have written to me with their experience with brain mets after dose intense taxol/carboplatin regimen. These patients had either ovarian, breast or lung cancers. No one has done further research on this matter to fully understand it.

The most appropriate treatment for patients with solitary brain metastases has been a source of controversy for nearly two decades and still needs to be defined. The Metastatic Brain Tumor Program at UCLA is studying the effects of eliminating whole brain radiation from the treatment of brain metastases, once and for all, debunking any left-over ideas about its effectiveness. Observation, with radiation delayed until evidence of progression, or focal radiation may be a better choice than WBR. Brachytherapy, Stereotactic Radiosurgery and Gamma-Knife are gaining acceptance as alternative means of treating brain metastases. These are found in your leading cancer centers and not at your local home town hospitals. In leading cancer centers, the few times that Whole Brain Radiation is still used are for GBM's, where it is thought that the patient will not live long enough for Brain Radiation Necrosis to take affect.

Cancer patients today, cannot wait another twenty years, let alone one hundred. The moral is, it is important for patients and their loved ones to be fully informed about all of their options in therapy, with their potential benefits and risks. Patients need to be given all of the knowledge they need to make an informed decision regarding their course of care.

Everyone has options and all must learn to take the next step to learn what their options are and not be lead without appropriate knowledge. So much conventional cancer treatments have been available for such a short period of time that it has not yet been determined all of the truely long term effects of some of these treatments.

It would be advisable for you to monitor your own illness and take charge of your own treatment. You must not expect too much from medical oncologists and radiation oncologists as their knowledge on cancer may not be complete. Very rarely will you be able to find a caring and compassionate oncologist.

In regards to alternative cancer treatments, I don't know very much about them. However, I cannot condemn anyone who choses to utilize them if they had gotten all of the information about the benefits and risks to make that decision.

Again, this is information. You choose what you want to do with it. Find out all the information you can before you make a decision. Information is the most important thing to have during a medical crisis. Medical literature hasn't had the time (or will) to publish all the side effects of conventional cancer treatment and many oncologists fail to properly inform patients of this. The most important issue here is INFORMED CONSENT. Make sure you are thoroughly INFORMED before making the CONSENT.